Sheila:
I think your suggesiotjn is a good one.
John
________________________________________
From: Information and/or Library Studies in the UK [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Sheila Corrall [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 15 December 2009 09:16
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: UKAIS response - panel name question
I don't view the UKAIS response as problematic. I think they are quite reasonably concerned that the previous sub-panel title Library and Information Management encouraged an overly-narrow interpretation of the field - which was rectified by the definition of scope produced, but it would have been better to have an appropriate title in the first place.
I think the suggestion of re-ordering the name of the sub-panel to put Information first is a good one, i.e. Information, Library, Communication, Cultural and Media Studies. Does anyone disagree with this? Maybe, this re-ordering should go further, e.g. Information, Communication, Library, Media and Cultural Studies?
Any views on this?
Sheila
On 14 Dec 2009, at 09:23, Maria Burke wrote:
Dear All
I am sending round the UK Assoc of Information Systems Response to the
REF Proposal. You will see that they are in essence saying that Library and Information Management should play a "smaller part" as there are only a few of us.(My interpretation) I consider this to be misleading - I know there are many of us working in Business Schools but who are still working in the area of Information Management and still publishing in those journals. If the Panel changes to become pure IS then IM will have little part to play and professionally and academically this could be disastrous for us.
Please respond directly to them (not to me) - they need responses by Wednesday this week. (I only rec'd this today).
Thank you
Dr Maria E Burke
Salford Business School
University of Salford
UK
[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Forwarded message:
Please see attached and below. David and Laurence would like thoughts/ replies very quick and soon since they have to finally submit this on Wednesday.
-----Original Message-----
From: Laurence Brooks [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Fri 12/11/2009 11:44 AM
To: Laurence Brooks
Cc: David Wainwright
Subject: UKAIS REF consultation response
Dear UKAIS member
UKAIS Proposed Response to the REF Details Proposal (Second Consultation)
Full Responses due by Wednesday 16th December 2009
The REF consultation information and full reports can be found at:
http://www.hefce.ac.uk/news/hefce/2009/ref.htm
http://www.hefce.ac.uk/pubs/hefce/2009/09_38/
UKAIS Members,
The UKAIS Board on behalf of the UKAIS members are preparing a response to the latest Research Excellence Framework (REF) detailed proposals. The full REF proposals can be referenced in the above links.
We have prepared a draft response based on what we think are the main issues and priorities for the next REF exercise - based on the consultation questions provided from HEFCE. UKAIS are one of many nominating Bodies and learned associations undertaking this exercise.
Please email the UKAIS President (Dr David Wainwright) cc the Vice President (Dr Laurence Brooks) if you have any strong concerns, issues you wish to comment on and be included in our joint response.
As you can see - we would like to argue for a much stronger recognition of the Information Systems Discipline. At the present time - IS researchers may submit to several units of assessment (as newly constituted in the REF proposals).
The main candidates are now:
Library, Information, Communication, Cultural and Media Studies (REF main panel D)
(Formerly, uoa 37, Library and Information Management; uoa 66, Communication, Cultural and Media Studies)
or,
Business and Management Studies (REF main panel C)
(Formerly, uoa 35, Accountancy and Finance; uoa 36, Business and Management)
Or,
Computer Science and Informatics (REF main panel B)
(Formerly, uoa 23, Computer Science and Informatics)
HE establishments (top down) will make the final decisions concerning researchers and research groups - and where they will be submitted. It is important that academics working in the IS discipline are not disadvantaged due to the lack of a specific assessment area with a panel that has a fair representation in terms of IS expertise and research knowledge.
It is rather perverse that IS researchers and those engaged in teaching IS related programmes and modules - when combined would represent a much larger constituency than the very few Library and Information Management departments - yet IS is potentially placed under this UOA. The same argument can also be made concerning the current and potential impact of IS research within organisations of all types, sectors as well as society in general.
In terms of Business and Management - very few Business Schools seem to have distinct IS departments/divisions - but IS seems to be allocated across the various sub areas (such as logistics, SCM, e-business, strategy, organisational behaviour, HR, marketing, finance etc). An IS group can therefore very quickly be absorbed and end up not having enough distinctive identity or may not have time to build a cumulative research (impact) track record.
If Information Systems was recognised explicitly (ideally in both LICCM and BM) - then IS researchers and research groups can plan accordingly. The danger is that if this reality is not articulated - then by the time of the next REF there will be confusion that will penalise IS researchers, the IS discipline and also by implication the economy and society in general.
As you can see this is not a new debate - but is becoming fundamentally more important. It will affect future positioning of IS within universities, the quality of research output and its impact. The latest news is that the largest IT project in history (the NHS NPfIT or CfH - projected at about £12 billion) is being seen as a failure. This could also be mirrored by our lack of cohesion and policy (within government, universities and as academics) resulting in poor research and positive impact on the management of ICT development and socio-technical change.
Please take time to send your views and responses. We will attempt to reflect these in the REF consultation document and also we will use this as a new springboard to argue for much more respect, dignity and recognition for the IS discipline in the future.
Kind Regards
David Wainwright
Dr David Wainwright, BSc, PhD, MBCS
President of the UK Academy for Information Systems (UKAIS)
Reader in Information Systems
Head of the Information Management Innovation (IMI) Research Group
School of Computing, Engineering and Information Sciences
Northumbria University
Pandon building
Camden Street
Newcastle upon Tyne, NE2 1XE
UK
Tel: +44 (0)191 243 7634
Fax +44 (0) 191 243 7630
Email: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
IMI Research Group
http://www.northumbria.ac.uk/sd/academic/ceis/re/isrc/
UKAIS
http://www.ukais.org
<UKAIS REF 2009 response for members comments Dec09.doc>
Sheila Corrall
Head of Department and Professor of Librarianship & Information Management
Department of Information Studies
Number one for 23 years
http://www.shef.ac.uk/is/
The University of Sheffield
Regent Court, 211 Portobello Street
Sheffield S1 4DP
T +44 (0)114 222 2632
F +44 (0)114 278 0300
Email [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
www.sheffield.ac.uk/is/staff/corrall.html<http://www.sheffield.ac.uk/is/staff/corrall.html>
|
